1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 29,508,00 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 31, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

① The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant, until October 17, 2014, with red powder powder and mash, and ② the fact that the Defendant did not pay KRW 29,508,000 out of the price of red powder powder and mash, etc. supplied by the Plaintiff, does not conflict between the parties, or can be recognized by adding the entire purport of pleadings to the statement in subparagraph 1. As such, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 29,508,000 and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 31, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day when the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that, on August 12, 2016, the defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Jung-gu District Court 2016 Session 3955, and accordingly the suspension order and prohibition order were issued, it is impossible to comply with the plaintiff's request.

① However, Article 593(1)4 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that, in cases where an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures is filed, the court may order the suspension or prohibition of all acts of receiving or demanding repayment of individual rehabilitation claims not later than the time when the decision on the application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures is made upon the application of interested parties or ex officio. On the other hand, since the proviso of the same subparagraph is excluded from litigation, the fact that the suspension order and prohibition order based on the above Act were issued does not constitute a ground for rejecting the plaintiff's claim. ② The defendant does not include the plaintiff as the creditor in filing the application for individual rehabilitation, and as a result, it appears that the suspension order and prohibition order were not served on the plaintiff. The above argument by the defendant is

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning.